barriers and enablers of innovation: a pilot survey of ... and enablers of innovation: a pilot...

Barriers and Enablers of Innovation:A Pilot Survey of Transportation Professionals

Lawrence H. Orcutt(primary author)

Chief, Division of Research and InnovationCalifornia Department of Transportation

1227 ‘O’ Street, 5th FloorSacramento, CA 95814

(916) 654-8877 voice(916) 657-4677 fax

[email protected]

Mohamed Y. AlKadri, Ph.D., PE(corresponding author)

Chief, Research Evaluation and Decision Support BranchDivision of Research and Innovation

California Department of Transportationand

Visiting ScholarCalifornia PATH Program

University of California, Berkeley1357 S. 46th Street, Building 457

Richmond, CA 94804

(510) 665-3429 voice(510) 665-3443 fax

[email protected]

A TRB manuscript submitted for peer review and for the 2009 Compendium of Papersand possible publication in the Transportation Research Record

Word count = 4620 words plus 8 figures and 1 table

Lawrence H. Orcutt and Mohamed Y. AlKadri 1

Barriers and Enablers of Innovation: A Pilot Survey of Transportation Professionals

ABSTRACTIn this research, a small sample of 109 transportation professionals was surveyed to

document their experiences with a set of common barriers and enablers of innovation. About76%, of the participants were transportation practitioners and researchers from California. Theremaining 24% were DoT research executives from other states. Of the California participants,84% were employees at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The sample wasfairly evenly distributed among professional ranks with 39% rank and file, 15% supervisors,23% middle managers, and 23% executives.

The survey asked the participants whether they considered revolutionary (disruptive) orevolutionary (sustaining) innovation is more critical; how to rate common roadblocks andenablers to innovation; which of the areas of safety, performance, cost-effectiveness, quality, andenvironment innovation is most important; and finally what steps they suggest to improve theprocess of innovation.

Research findings are described and documented in this paper. Findings indicate thatrespondents are highly in favor of innovation. About 63% respondents considered themselveschampions of innovation. An impressive 99% of respondents rated innovation as “important” or“very important.” Preference for revolutionary vs. evolutionary innovations varied with 73% ofacademic respondents stating focus should be on revolutionary innovation and only 27% of non-academic respondents indicating so. The worst-rated innovation roadblock was “resistance tochange.” The highest-rated enabler of innovation was “product matched user need.”Respondents provided specific suggestions to improve innovation by establishing clear directionand procedures, securing executive sponsorship, empowering people to innovate, and findingchampions for innovation at all levels.

RESEARCH MOTIVATIONResearch Background

Research work leading to this paper was conducted at the Division of Research andInnovation (DRI) at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). With its staff of 85planners, engineers and research analysts and an annual budget of $45 million, DRI is one of thelargest state transportation research programs in the US.

This research was largely motivated by desire of the authors to share lessons learned inthe implementation of innovation. The primary author of this paper has led DRI over the pastfive years and previously was Chief of Caltrans Division of Maintenance (a division with over6000 employees and an annual budget of one billion dollars, a good portion of which is spent onimplementing innovative tools and methods). Caltrans has faced and often successfully managednumerous challenges in transforming research products into deployable working systems. DRIdid so by participating in innovative projects that produced advanced transportation systems,products, and services such as the National Intelligent Transportation System Architecture(NITSA), Automated Highway Systems (AHS), Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, (IVI), Bus Rapid


Transit (BRT), Integrated Corridor Management Initiative (ICMI), and Cooperative IntersectionCollision Avoidance Systems.

Over its 22-year history, in order to solve transportation problems in California andadvance the state of knowledge and practice in transportation as a whole, DRI has funded andsupervised advanced transportation research at University of California campuses at Berkeley,Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Barbara. DRI has also funded and managedresearch at California State University at campuses at Long Beach, Sacramento, San Diego,CalPoly San Louis Obispo, and San Jose. DRI has also funded and conducted research incollaboration with research institutions in and outside California including Stanford University,University of Southern California, George Mason University, Virginia Tech, Texas A&MUniversity, University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University, University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill and many other research institutions and the National Labs. DRI exchanged staffand expertise with, among others, Montana Western Transportation Institute, TexasTransportation Institute, ITS Japan, and INRETS France.

DRI learned that partnerships can the implementation of innovation. Therefore, to moveresearch products towards deployment, DRI has formed partnerships with major implementersand operators at the state and regional levels such as the Bay Area Metropolitan TransportationCommission, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), CaliforniaHighway Patrol (CHP), California Alliance for Advanced Transportation Systems (CAATS),Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, Southern CaliforniaAssociation of Governments (SCAG), and other local and city governments and public entities.

Finally, to facilitate commercialization of innovative research products, DRI helpedestablish the California Center for Innovative Transportation (CCIT) at UC Berkeley. DRI hasbeen working with private sector developers and manufactures such as General Motors,DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, Honda, Toyota, Cambridge Systematics, RockwellInternational, Hughes Aircraft, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, TRW, Booz, Allen and Hamilton,and the Chevron Research Corporation and numerous other private sector R&D entities.

In this paper, the authors tapped into the vast depository of experience, lessons learned,and challenges still being encountered at DRI in particular and Caltrans overall to formulate theirresearch questions.

Research ObjectivesThe objectives of research leading to this paper have been 1) to determine whether

transportation managers should focus on sustaining (evolutionary) innovation or disruptive(revolutionary) innovation; 2) to identify the most common roadblocks facing theimplementation of innovation, particularly at an organization like Caltrans; 3) to identify themost common enablers (or “boosters”) of the innovation process; 4) to prioritize the importanceof innovation in safety, performance, cost-effectiveness, quality, and environmental protection;and finally, 5) to identify new ways to help facilitate the process of implementing innovation atCaltrans in particular and at other state departments of transportation in general.


Research MethodologyThe authors used two approaches to answer these questions. The first was to develop

case studies of innovative projects and analyze roadblocks encountered and mitigation measuresused. That effort is described in another paper submitted to the TRB titled “OvercomingRoadblocks Facing the Implementation of Innovations: Analysis of Three Case Studies atCaltrans.” The second approach was to use a survey based on a review of relevant literature (1)as well as the authors’ own experiences. The authors compiled and analyzed a list of the majorroadblocks as well as enablers along the road to implementing innovation. The authors assumethat they have identified all significant roadblocks and boosters of innovation. The authorsdefined Sustaining Technology as one that includes changes that improve our current businesspractices or products. Incremental performance improvements result from sustainingtechnologies. They defined Disruptive Technology as one that includes changes that completelyreorient how business is conducted. Based on suggestions in the literature (1, 2) and their ownexperience, authors identified five areas in need of innovation: Safety, performance, cost-effectiveness, quality, and environmental protection as candidate areas for innovation. Lastly,the authors accepted conclusions reached by AlKadri et al that the implementation of evenrevolutionary transportation innovations such as the Automated Highway Systems (AHS) needsto take place in a modular and incremental manner (3). AlKadri et al argued that revolutionarydeployment does not always allow for the adequate (long-term) testing of technology and ignoresthe challenges of market acceptance and social change (3).

Collectively, the above assumptions constituted a “hypothesis” that has been tested withthe survey. Respondents rated the importance and impacts of each of these roadblocks andenablers. Respondents were asked which innovation approach (sustaining or disruptive) is morepreferred and how to prioritize innovation in the five areas of safety, performance, cost-effectiveness, quality, and environmental protection. Finally, the authors asked the participantsto provide suggestions on how to improve the process of innovation. Only descriptive statisticsare used in this exploratory analysis of the data.

SURVEY INSTRUMENTSurvey Questions

The survey instrument consisted of ten questions. At the start of the survey, the word“innovation” was defined to establish the context of this research. Participants were informedthat, for the purpose of this survey, the following definition for innovation is proposed:

“Innovation is the successful implementation of a new and widely-used product or business practice.Innovation in the highway sector usually involves products or business practices that improveperformance, cost-effectiveness, quality, safety, and/or reduce environmental consequences.”

Table I contains a list of these questions. The first two questions were used to collectinformation about the background and affiliation of respondents. Questions 3, 7, 8, and 9 were“evaluation questions through which respondents would rate the importance/significance of eachroadblock or enabler. Questions 4 and 6 were multiple-choice questions that asked respondentsto choose one or more answers. Question 5 was to assign priority to the five areas in need ofinnovation (safety, performance, cost-effectiveness, quality, and environmental protection).Question 10 was designed to solicit written comments and suggestions on how to betterimplement the process of innovation. Table I shows questions 2 through 10 and an explanationof the purpose of each question.


TABLE I Survey Questions

Q# Question Purpose1 (This question requested some identifying information

about respondents)Establish background informationfor data management purposes

2 What is your level in your organization? Obtain information aboutrespondent’s level of responsibility

3. Based on the definition provided above, howimportant is innovation?(a)

Identify respondent’s view onimportance of innovation

4. Which type of innovation do you think is moreimportant?

Identify respondent’s view onimportance of evolutionary vs.revolutionary innovation

5. What areas of innovation are you most interested inimproving?(Each is assigned priority from 1-5)

Identify highest-lowest area ofimportance for innovation to beapplied

6. What role(s) do you have in implementing innovation? Determine proportion of “innovationchampions” and identifyrespondent’s role in implementinginnovation

7. Rate the importance of the roadblocks to innovationlisted below.(a)

Determine which roadblocksrespondent sees as serious.

8. Rate the implementation boosters that would promoteinnovation with regard to importance(a)

Determine which factors respondentbelieves would facilitate innovation.

Note: Question 9 will be discussed before Question 8because it deals with institutional barriers. Question 8,factors that boost innovation will be discussed afterwards.

9. Rate the following in terms of their importance asinstitutional barriers to implementing innovations(a)

Determine which institutionalfactors respondent believes wouldimpede innovation.

10. What can be done to improve how innovations areimplemented?Comments and suggestions to be provided by respondents

Requests written recommendationsfrom respondents on how toimplement innovation

(a) Ordinal ratings between 1-5 were used.


Sample PopulationThe questionnaire was sent to 150 transportation professionals. The rate of return was an

acceptable 73% with a total of 109 completing and returning useable surveys. Although thesample size is small relative to the universe of all transportation managers, it was selected to befairly representative of those transportation professionals who are involved in research andinnovation. Participants were chosen carefully to obtain a cross-section of planners andengineers, rank-and-file and management, private sector consultants and government agencies,educators and field practitioners from California and across the United States and some fromAlberta, Canada. Authors surveyed professionals from outside California to learn fromexperiences of other state DoTs. All respondents reported high levels of education and extensiveexperience in the field of transportation research and development.

The survey was sent to all 50 state DoT research directors. There were 26 respondentsfrom outside California (AR, AZ, CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MT, NE,NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, TX, WI, and WY). Since this is a mainly Caltrans-based survey, mostparticipants were from California however. Eighty-one respondents came from California with69 respondents from Caltrans, 54 came from Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation.Caltrans respondents are denoted in charts as CT. As shown in Figure 1, the breakdown ofrespondent positions in the sample was 39% rank and file, 15% supervisor, 23% middlemanager, and 23% executive-level. A relatively small number, only 12 respondents, wereuniversity professors and transportation research centers affiliated with educational institutionsand are denoted in charts as EDU. The small proportion of the academic group in this sampleshould be kept in mind when making generalized conclusions. Almost 60% of respondents (64people) provided written suggestions on how to improve the innovation implementation process.

Supervisor15%

Executive24% Rank and

File37%

Middle Manager

24%

Figure 1. Respondents’ positions in their organizations.

Data CollectionThe survey was designed using tools form SurveyMonkey.com, a professional web-based

survey service. Respondents were given a link to the survey and all answers were collected on-line. The survey was conducted during April and May 2008.


Reference to Respondent AnswersEach respondent was given a number from 1 to 109. In this paper, when a reference is

made to a particular answer, statement or comment made by a respondent, it is followed by theletter R and respondent number. For example, a comment made by respondent 65 is followed by(R65) to refer to that respondent. A list of positions and states of those respondents who werequoted or referred to in this paper is given in Table II. Only position and state are indicated inorder to understand the professional and geographic context in which respondents providedanswers while no names or affiliations are revealed to maintain anonymity of respondents andconfidentiality of their answers.

SURVEY RESULTSResults of the survey will be presented below for each of the questions individually. The

first question was to obtain name, affiliation, and background information about respondents.The second question was to identify the respondent’s level in the organization. Results fromquestion 2 were illustrated in Figure 1 above. Questions 3 through 10 are discussed below indetail.

Q3. Based on the definition provided above, how important is innovation?The purpose of this question was to identify respondents’ views on importance of

innovation. Other than the 1% of respondents who did not have an opinion, 99% believe in theimportance of innovation. About 79% of respondents thought that innovation was “veryimportant” and 20% thought it was “important.” No respondent thought it was unimportant orthat it was neither important nor unimportant. These results are very reassuring, indicating thatthere is unanimity on the need to innovate. Figure 2 shows the distribution of respondentanswers to this question.

Neither important nor unimportant

0%

Unimportant0%

Very unimportant

0%

No Opinion1%

Important20%

Very important79%

Figure 2. Respondents’ views of the importance of innovation.


Q4. Which type of innovation do you think is more important (sustaining or disruptive)?The purpose of this question was to identify respondent’s view on importance of

evolutionary vs. revolutionary innovation. The questionnaire defined Sustaining Technology asone that includes changes that improve our current business practices or products. Incrementalperformance improvements result from sustaining technologies. It defined DisruptiveTechnology as one that includes changes that completely reorient how business is conducted.For example, in computing the laptop is displacing or marginalizing desktop computing; inphotography, digital is displacing or marginalizing film.

Figure 3 shows the proportion of respondents who believed whether sustaining ordisruptive innovation technologies as more important. The figure shows all respondents groupedtogether as well as Caltrans and academic respondents grouped separately to illustrate thedifferent perceptions among practitioners and university researchers. These results may explainsome of differences in interest between researchers who want to pursue more basic research andpractitioners (and often fund providers and customers) who want the focus to be on appliedresearch. One respondent who is a researcher as well as a field practitioner believed that bothsustaining and disruptive are important in their own right.

62.5

27.3

38.2 37.5

72.7

61.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All Respondents Caltrans Academic

Respondent's Affiliation

Resp

on

den

t C

ho

ice (

%)

Sustaining (evolutionary) Innovation TechnologiesDisruptive (revolutionary) Innovation Technologies

Figure 3. Importance of sustaining vs. disruptive innovations.


Q5. What areas of innovation are you most interested in improving?The purpose of this question was to ask participants to rank areas where innovation is

more important.

Figure 4 shows respondents’ average ranking of the five areas. Safety was the toppriority for Caltrans respondents. It received an average ranking of 4.1, followed byperformance, quality, cost-effectiveness, and finally reducing the impacts on the environment,which received an average of 2.0, lowest level of interest. Academic researchers howeverindicated they are most interested in performance innovations, followed by quality. Their lowestconcern was “cost-effectiveness.” These results (with ordinal scores between 1 and 5) also showthat the academic researchers seem to be twice as concerned about the environment as are fieldpractitioners.

3.5

2.5

3.1

3.9

2.1

3.4

2.3

3.1

4.1

2.0

3.9

2.5

3.1

2.6

2.9

1

2

3

4

5

Performance Cost-effectiveness Quality Safety Reducingenvironmental

impactsArea of Interest

Avera

ge I

nte

rest

Level

(lo

west

=1

, h

igh

est

=5

)

All CT EDU

Figure 4. Importance ranking for areas of innovation.


Q6. What role(s) do you have in implementing innovation?The purpose of this question was to determine proportion of those who considered

themselves “innovation champions” and to identify respondents’ roles in implementinginnovation. The question did not exactly define what makes one a “champion” but it is impliedthat it is the person who is proactively promoting innovation. Also implied here that championsare willing to take risks in order to promote innovation and advance the state of practice in theirfield.

Figure 5 shows distribution of respondents’ roles in the process of innovation. . Almosttwo-thirds of respondents considered themselves to be innovation champions. As will be shownin later sections, those “risk takers” may explain why “resistance to change” and “risk aversion”were rated as very serious roadblocks to innovation.

It should be noted that the distributions for roles shown in Figure 5 is not cumulativesince these roles can overlap. For example, a respondent can be an innovation champion, adecision maker, and play a role in developing policies for implementing innovation all at thesame time. Roles 6, 7, 8, and 9 are Caltrans-specific and apply to Caltrans staff only. About23% of respondents provided some comments about their unique roles in innovation.

63

42 40 42

18

11 12

22 21 23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Innovation

cham

pio

n

Deci

sion-

maker

Pote

ntial

imple

mento

r

Develo

per

of

polic

y a

nd

pro

cedure

s

Cust

om

er

R&

DSte

ering

Com

mitte

e

R&

DAdvis

ory

Com

mitte

e

Tech

nic

al

Advis

ory

Panel

Rese

arc

hPro

ject

Panel

Mem

ber

Resp

ondents

Who W

rote

Com

ments

Role in Innovation

Perc

en

t o

f R

esp

on

den

tsw

ith

th

is R

ole

Figure 5. Respondents’ roles in the innovation process.


Q7. Rate the importance of the roadblocks to innovation listed below.The purpose of this question was to determine the degree of importance of each of the ten

roadblocks. Respondents’ answers will reveal which roadblocks they consider as most serious.

Figure 6 shows respondents’ ranking of the ten most common organizational andtechnical roadblocks to implementing innovation. Results show that both Caltrans practitionersand academic researchers view “resistance to change” by a wide margin as the most seriousroadblock to innovation, with researchers thinking it is a little more serious (4.8 on average) thanCaltrans participants do (4.6 on average). The least significant roadblock to both groups seemsto be contracting issues. However, this barrier seems much more significant to Caltrans group,who rated it 3.7, as opposed to the academic group, who rated it 2.9. Caltrans group is muchmore concerned about this roadblock than researchers because many of Caltrans practitioners areproject managers who, naturally, deal more with procurement and contractual problems.Roadblock #7, “no time for innovation,” was described by one respondent as “the biggestimpediment to implementing new innovations.” The same respondent lamented “we do not havethe people to spend the time it takes to make it happen. They are, and rightly so, too busyputting out the fires today.” Many respondents identified additional roadblocks that they haveencountered in their practice. Those are presented later in discussion for Question 10.

4.5

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.5

4.1

3.7

4.0

3.7

4.0

4.6

4.2

3.9 4

.0

3.7

3.9

3.8

4.1

3.8

4.1

4.8

3.6

4.2

3.4

2.9

4.3

3.3

4.0

3.8

3.6

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Res

ista

nce

toch

ange

2.

Stiff le

gal

requ

irem

ents

3.

Ris

k av

ersi

oncu

ltur

e

4.

No

perf

orm

ance

criter

ia

5.

Con

trac

ting

issu

es

6.

No

exec

utiv

esp

onso

rshi

p

7.

No

tim

e fo

rin

nova

tion

8.

Inad

equa

tefu

ndin

g

9.

No

busi

ness

case

for

pro

duct

10.

Lack

of

impl

emen

tation

requ

irem

ents

Innovation Roadblocks

Imp

ort

an

ce(l

ow

est

=1

, h

igh

est

=5

)

All CT EDU

Figure 6. Respondents’ ranking of the importance of innovation roadblocks.

Note: Question 9 will be discussed before Question 8 because it deals with institutional barriers.Question 8 will be discussed afterwards.


Q9. Rate the following in terms of their importance as institutional barriers toimplementing innovations.The purpose of this question was to determine which institutional factors respondents

believe would most impede innovation.

Figure 7 shows respondents’ ranking of six common institutional barriers toimplementing innovation. Results show that both Caltrans practitioners and academicresearchers view “lack of political will to take on challenge” as the most serious institutionalbarrier to innovation, with researchers thinking it is more serious and rating this barrier 4.7 onaverage as compared with Caltrans group, who rated it 4.3 on average. Academic researchersdid not seem to consider “diversity of transportation” to be a significant “institutional” barrier,giving it an average rating of 3.2. Caltrans group on the other hand thought it was much moreserious, rating it at 4.0. This may suggest that researchers think of transportation more ascomplex system of road structures and traffic networks that is challenging and exciting toanalyze. Caltrans practitioners on the other hand may view transportation more as a system ofmultiple agencies, jurisdictions with conflicting objectives and competition for control andresources. Resistance to change was rated high in both the institutional and roadblock results.

4.3

4.03.8

4.24.0 3.9

4.34.0 4.0

4.34.0 4.0

4.7

3.8

3.2

4.0

4.3

3.8

1

2

3

4

5

1. Lack ofpolitical will to

take onchallenge

2. Stovepipedorganizational

structure

3. Diversity oftransportation

4. People'sresistance to

change

5. Company hasa risk-adverseenvironment

6. Conflictingobjectives

Institutional Barriers to Innovation

Imp

ort

an

ce(l

ow

est

=1

, h

igh

est

=5

)

ALL CT EDU

Figure 7. Respondents’ ranking of institutional barriers to innovation.


Q8. Rate the implementation boosters that would promote innovation.The purpose of this question was to determine which factors respondents believe would

facilitate innovation and boost the process of implementing innovation.

Figure 8 shows respondents’ ranking of the nine most common cited factors that enableand boost the process of implementing new innovations. No one factor was rated significantlybetter booster. Respondents similarly ranked all nine boosters quite similarly. “Product matchesuser needs” and “user/customer participation” received the highest ratings with 4.6 and 4.5respectively. Many respondents discussed ways of boosting innovation in their responses toQuestion 10.

4.44.6 4.5

4.34.2 4.2

4.54.2 4.2

4.5 4.64.5 4.4

4.34.1

4.6

4.34.2

4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4

4.0

4.4

4.0 4.1 4.2

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Suc

cess

ful

pilo

t pr

ojec

ts

2.

Prod

uct

mat

ches

use

rne

eds

3.

Str

ong

man

agem

ent

supp

ort

4.

Ade

quat

ein

nova

tion

fund

ing

5.

Ade

quat

ede

ploy

men

tsu

ppor

t

6.

Dem

onst

rate

din

nova

tion

bene

fit

7.

Cus

tom

er/u

ser

part

icip

atio

n

8.

Cle

arin

nova

tion

obje

ctiv

es

9.

Ince

ntiv

esto

inno

vate

Innovation Boosters

Imp

ort

an

ce(l

ow

est

=1

, h

igh

est

=5

)

ALL CT EDU

Figure 8. Respondents’ ranking of the importance of innovation boosters.

Respondents rated user involvement as an important booster of innovation. The highestrated booster is “product matches user needs,” but “customer/user participation” and “strongmanagement support” are also indicators of the desire to have customer directly involved in theresearch and deployment of innovative products. The high ranking of “successful pilot projects”and “demonstrated innovation benefits” strongly suggest that providing documentation of thebenefits and business cases for implementing innovation is also an important innovationboosters. These involving customers and documenting benefits are key elements of systemengineering principles that should be considered when planning for producing innovations thatbecome successful product deployments.


Q10. What can be done to improve how innovations are implemented?This question requested written recommendations from respondents about how to

improve the implementation of innovation. It allowed respondents to provide unconstrainedcomments, suggestions, and recommendations on how to best overcome roadblocks and movethe innovation process forward. Almost 60% of respondents (64 people) provided suggestions.These suggestions are discussed under Respondents’ Recommendations section below.

RESPONDENTS’ RECOMMENDATIONSAll respondents reported high levels of education and extensive experience in the field of

transportation research and development. Many respondents have executive-levelresponsibilities. Suggestions collected through Question 10 were mostly based on personal andprofessional experience of the individuals. Overall, suggestions centered around seven ideas aspresented below. Respondents are either directly quoted with use of quotation marks orparaphrased as carefully and closely as possible.

1) Establish clear direction and procedures for the innovation processA vast number of respondent comments focused on the need to establish clear direction

and procedures for the innovation process, including clear objectives and precise performancemeasures to evaluate success. One respondent stressed the importance to define what is “new”and what is “innovative” (R85). Another said clear procedures should be created forimplementations and marketing (R13), and some respondents recommended to make pilotprojects part of the implementation process. Frustration with bureaucracy was evident. Theinnovation process should be streamlined so that there are fewer barriers holding up innovation(R76). “The FSR [Feasibility Study Report required for implementation of innovations atCaltrans] process and requirements are mind-boggling and in need of streamlining as well”(R76). Executive leaders must "institutionalize" the culture of encouraging innovation byintegrating it into work plans and incorporating it into the regular performance evaluations of theorganization and its managers (R40). One respondent’s experience is that most innovations stopat the recommendations level in government and there are not good implementation plans tocarry out the recommendations make them permanent or institutional (R14). The samerespondent further cautioned that “Too often things are attached to a person and when thatperson moves on and so does the innovation.” (R14). The implementation of innovation shouldbe mandated in order to carry innovation to fruition (R23).

2) Improve communicationsOne respondent emphasized “Communicate, communicate, and communicate.” (R25).

Make sure that everyone with an interest in the potential innovation gets a chance to provideinput and to question (R25). A university research executive suggested connecting theorganization [say Caltrans] more closely with researchers and innovators (R67). A projectmanager would mandate customer participation in project progress and meetings (R84).

3) Secure executive sponsorship and management supportThere was a universal consensus that strong management support for innovation is

indispensable. “There is no substitute for leadership with vision and practical, focused follow-through,” one respondent wrote (R#40). Innovation begins with executive-level commitmentand development of a work environment that embraces innovation (R38). Upper management


support and encouragement is required (R24). Innovation needs strong executive support &successful pilots/demos (R39). There is a need for strong executive mandate and adequatefunding of demonstration programs (R81). While executive-level support is important, they needto leave the implementation to the experts. Leaders should lead, not manage (R35). Finally, topleadership has to make innovation a priority and then hold people accountable (R32).

4) Empower people and find champions for each innovative idea/projectInnovation champions are needed in the innovation policy and procedures area.

Otherwise, innovations will fall flat or will not reach full potential (R6). Many respondentssuggested that research staff “needs to be empowered to accomplish innovation.” (R46). It isnecessary to have champions at high-levels in order to create a culture for innovation in anorganization as well as product-level champions to overcome resistance to change (R17). Auniversity professor and a director of a university transportation center said: “Give people somefreedom to try new things.” (R60). A Caltrans project manager suggested to give ownership ofeach innovation project to a small team with management backing (R95). One respondentpointed out the role of the individual in innovation and cautioned that, “if the person who ischampioning the change is not liked in the organization, the change may be overlooked.” (R#6)

5) Create incentives for innovatorsMany respondents argued for increasing opportunities for innovative ideas. Creating

incentives was advocated by both university researchers and project managers. “More ideasportend higher probability of innovation which may be implemented” said a universityresearcher (R91). A senior electronics engineer would reward innovators and reward those inmanagement who are willing to take reasonable risk when the potential advance is significant(R94). A senior transportation engineer would encourage more innovative research work bystaff by reducing administrative workload demands (R100).

6) Demonstrate the benefits of innovationMany respondents emphasized the importance of ensuring that end users have clear

understanding of the advantage of innovation (R89). The benefits of the concept must be provento satisfy the real user needs (R36). Innovation advocates and end-users must have clearunderstanding of the problem and value added by innovation (R53). The importance of aninnovation must be clarified up front to all stakeholders (R62). Case studies should be used toshow how other state agencies have implemented an innovation and show how it has improvedtheir business (R77).

7) Manage risk and changeSurprisingly, many respondents with executive authority confronted the need to take

reasonable risk head on. One asked to “demystify risk” because sometimes “it is riskier not toact.” (R52). Another said one must “accept certain amount of risk to compensate for highpayoff.” (R68). One acknowledged that the core issue is the “risk-averse culture,” the generallack of positive reinforcement to try something new, and the "penalties" if you break the moldand fail (R87). One executive cautioned, however, to be realistic and not expect the organizationto always absorb the cost/effort to innovate (R78). One respondent believed that people, users,and even institutions that normally are reluctant to change would eventually welcome "good"changes that make life easier (R109).


CONCLUSIONSThis research showed that all transportation professionals surveyed, whether they are rank-and-file or executives, planners or engineers, in the private or public sector, practitioners or educatorsfrom across the country almost unanimously believe that innovation is “important” or “veryimportant.” Academic researchers seem to believe more in “revolutionary” rather than“evolutionary” innovation. Real-world practitioners on the other hand believe in gradual,sustaining, non-disruptive innovation. The authors see no conflict here. Researchers need to beadventurous, knowledge seekers. On the other hand, engineers have to build safe, reliablesystems that take time and effort to design, build, and test. Planners need to plan in anevolutionary manner that takes into consideration market demand and socio-economic andpolitical factors. Smart confluence of both approaches will ensure that exciting innovations getcreated and implemented.

Respondents nearly collectively recommended seven major actions to help the process ofinnovation: 1) establish clear direction and procedures for the innovation process, 2) improvecommunications; 3) secure executive sponsorship and management support; 4) empoweremployees and find champions for each innovation, 5) create incentives for innovators; 6)demonstrate the benefits of innovation, and 7) manage risk and change.

Finally, the research showed that “resistance to change” and “lack of political will” are amongthe most serious barriers to innovation. The highest-rated enabler of innovation was “productmatched user need.” It was also evident that innovation, whether disruptive or sustaining,requires champions of innovation at all levels of the organization to be successful. It was evidentthat managing risk and change is critical for the success of innovation. In the public sector, mostfailures are highly publicized and criticized. A single innovation failure can outstand, outtalk,and overshadow dozens of successful ones. Therefore, creating the ability to take calculated,reasonable risks is required at all public agencies in the transportation sector.


TABLE II Position and State of Referenced Respondents

R# Position State6 Caltrans Branch Chief California13 Pavement Researcher California14 Research Analyst California17 Research Engineer Kansas23 State Programming Engineer Wyoming24 Director, Research Services Minnesota25 Research Director Alberta, Canada27 Research Unit Manager Oregon32 Organizational Results Director Missouri34 Director, Research and Technology Implementation Texas35 Director, Research and Development New York36 Director, Transportation Research Center Kentucky38 Director, Transportation Research Maine39 Research Program Development Manager Pennsylvania40 President and CEO, a California company California46 Caltrans Deputy District Director California52 Caltrans Division Chief California53 Caltrans Office Chief California60 Professor, Director, Univ. Transportation Center California62 Transportation Planner California67 Director, Institute of Transportation Studies California68 Professor California76 Caltrans Office Chief California77 Civil Engineer California78 Caltrans Division Chief California81 Executive Director, University Transportation Inst. California84 Transportation Engineer California85 Caltrans Division Chief California87 Caltrans Deputy District Director California89 Sr. Transportation Engineer California91 Transportation Safety Research Program Leader California94 Sr. Electronics Engineer California95 Senior Research Engineer California100 Sr. Transportation Engineer California101 Sr. Transportation Engineer California109 Sr. Transportation Engineer California109 Sr. Transportation Engineer California


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors wish to thank the following individuals for their valuable contributions to

this study: Dr. Peter Haas, Director of Education at Mineta Transportation Institute at San JoseState University; Dr. Brahm Ravani, Director of the Advanced Highway Maintenance andConstruction Center at UC Davis; Dr. Genevieve Giuliano, Director of METRANS at theUniversity of Southern California.

REFERENCES1. Research and Technology Coordinating Committee. The Federal Role in Highway Researchand Technology Special Report No. 261, Transportation Research Board, National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press. Washington, DC, 2001.

2. Hikichi, Lynda K. and Beimborn, Edward A.. “Examination of Process of Innovation atTransit Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1986, Washington, D.C. 2006.

3. AlKadri, Mohamed, Benouar, Hamed, and Tsao, H.-S. Jacob. “Intermediate AutomationConcepts for Incremental Deployment of Automated Highway Systems,” TransportationResearch Record 1651, Washington, D.C. 1998.

barriers and enablers of innovation: a pilot survey of ... and enablers of innovation: a pilot...

Documents